Archive: Opinions

A lot of my reading sources come from what perhaps would be called somewhat less than traditional, or the normal streams of information. In other words, I can easily forsake the NY Times, Washington Post, and most news magazines, not because I don't necessarily 'believe' them , but because I do not subscribe to the idea of 'fake news', although I do believe that most of the 'so-called news' is nothing but pablum and not what we should be concentrating on. The most listened to/read sources seem vanilla, dull, and to start on my tangent this week, they are also a huge echo chamber of the same old stories, angles and common bent. originality of reporting is becoming a rarity, much as original fiction writing has become an echo chamber, and what seems to be 'selling'.

I like looking for the stories in the nooks and crannies that escape American parochialism, and sometimes can find a very different perspective on what the 'informed' American may be missing. Of course, I realize that this way of thinking can also lead me into weird dead ends and not so correct thinking, but, that's the danger of being, perhaps, a contrarian. It might also give me a label (undeserved, I think) of elitism, or 'smarter than thee', but I think I can quickly shed myself of a charge like that. I just read different things that raise questions about our own narrow views that four minute newscasts seem to perpetuate.

One of the reasons I left Cayuga Radio Group (read: Saga Communications) was their insistence that any interview could be concluded in eight minutes or less, and keep it on the phone, not in person (something that even their news department doesn't seem to believe in; that is, actually talking to someone instead of just reading press releases). 'Tain't that easy, I proclaimed, and try to prove some of this on a weekly basis.

Reading The Economist, and the Financial Times is a distinctly 'world' view, and I think I benefit from it. I'll give you an example, as compared to our typical American 'headlines'.

Our media continue to report numbers that are basically meaningless in regard to the 'trade war' between U.S. and China. This seemingly is about all America needs to know (how many billions of dollars in taxes, excuse me, tariffs are being levied, as if the numbers were the story), although it doesn't seem to faze anyone's behavior, purchases or perceptions at the grocery store, big box retailer or any other point of sale. It continues to garner headlines as if the tariffs were the only important point to know. Especially if we see all of this as fodder for individual sentiments about Donald Trump. Are tariffs stupid? Of course, but that's not really the story. Or, as Paul Harvey used to say, 'The rest of the Story'. I'd like to point out something I've noticed in the past month in my 'alternative' reading of some very influential sources as mentioned above.

Mr. Hu Bi Liang is a professor and director of the Belt and Road Institute at Beijing Normal University (I assume 'Normal' in the name is a reference to what we used to call a teaching college). The Belt and Road Initiative, if you've not heard about it (rarely mentioned if at all in American mainstream media) is an all-out effort by the People's Republic of China to build a 21st century Silk Road, connecting China's burgeoning infrastructure (totally government owned and built) and their military-industrial complex to all important points, and ports, across Asia, into Africa and into Europe. It promises to put billions of Chinese 'dollars' into economies as diverse as Tajikistan, India, Pakistan, Iran, as well as Kenya, Tanzania.

You get the idea, I assume: much like an interstate system, but this includes factories, highways, railroads, and billions of 'dollars' of investments, with the additional bonus of thousands of Chinese civilian engineers and army specialists (in mufti) entering these countries, with expertise in dams, water systems, railroads, factories, etc. Much of this is actually moving a large number of 'excess' personnel into Third World countries, much as Cuba sent thousands of excess medical personnel into Third World countries in the 70's, but this on a much grander scale, seeking to 'connect' China with the continents of Europe and Africa... interestingly, in much the same fashion as some nautical historians have claimed that the Chinese did in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, pre-dating European explorers by as much as one to two hundred years. Think Marco Polo in reverse, with modern technology and Chinese riches financing the grand idea which is already taking place.

Now, the fact that it is already taking place gives our government pause and concern: to the point where we are carping about Chinese hegemony and loan 'sharking' with Third World countries, especially in Africa. It is easily argued that this is exactly what the US should have been doing at the fall of the Berlin Wall, the 'peace dividend', the 'end of history' as Fukuyama opined. But the reality is that we blew it: we ignored the economic lifeblood of the emerging world and the only Americans seen in Africa these days are missionaries and military (and few of them). China, it must be argued, got it right.

What fascinates me (getting back to Mr. Hu Liang) is a two page written advertisement in the Economist, putting forward point by point refutations of the arguments being forwarded by the U.S. We (our government and the Chest-Thumper-In-Chief and his minions like Wilbur Ross and Larry Kudlow) who are claiming that China is making an attempt at economic hegemony, and attempt to strangle the Third World and a blatant attempt at 'world domination'.

No such thing, Mr. Hu explains, in patient, scholarly arguments and terms that would seem appropriate in any American business school, such as the Johnson at Cornell, the Wharton at Penn, Harvard, etc.). His stated theory and explanation in the advertisement ( a pretty expensive one at that, is my guess) is that what China is doing is impeccable and basically unimpeachable, nothing more than what the U.S., and even the USSR, tried to do for years, but on a grander and more reasonable scale. Denying any military desires or ends, Hu stated in the advertisement: "China has declared to build the Belt and Road as an international cooperation platform jointly with partners to ensure that the program would be a collaborative one... [and] aims to build a community with a shared future for mankind together with every member of the international community." Could have come right out of the USAID's playbook, yes? Wow.

He goes on to state that China wants to benefit the world economy and share influence.

My point here is that the Chinese have learned their lesson well. They are using our media, our language, our history, and our freedom of speech/press, and even the idea of the Marshall Plan in a way, which in some ways, puts us in second place in the eyes of the world, especially when all we do is cry about 'unfair' competition and poke countries in their collective eyes with recriminatory tariffs, while our media continues to play the cry-baby game with soundbites from Washington's news makers and press releases. A country which has no 'free' media, no freedom of expression, jails its dissidents (both religious and political), spies on its citizens with 'social scores' not unlike our own credit scoring, and does everything it can to eliminate all 'foreign' influences (including, now, school textbooks), well, they certainly have learned how to use our media, our language, our 'foreign' culture to push its own agenda, in the guise of 'international community', as they so state, so American. I'm not being a smart-aleck anti-Chinese here, only stating that they learn lessons about our ways much better and quicker than we apparently have learned anything about them and their 'ways'.

The Soviet Union never did learn these lessons, and I wonder if we, too, may be overlooking the student ho has now surpassed us in our own game of liberty and media. All the while the Communist government continues to clamp mdown on any internal interference in its efforts to become dominant in influence as well as controlling its own population in ways we should find abhorrent.

The Chinese are, as an editorial in the Financial Times stated, "Reshaping the International Order", while we in America seem to be tearing ourselves to shreds, thinking we know more, and of course, know better, because we're Americans.

One more interesting angle on this, from another perspective. The People's republic has a qualifying examination for its most elite universities. Students study for this test for years before they actually sit for it, and millions of students and their parents consider the run up and the wait for scores to be hell on earth, complaining mightily for years about its unfairness and stress upon families and the students who desire to enter the top Chinese universities.

This test would be focused on academic matters, right? Like our SAT, GRE, etc. And, it is certainly true that China is breeding a real crop of true scientific and mathematical geniuses. But, try this on for size taken from the latest 'gaokao' (as it is known in China): "Drawing on your political knowledge, explain why the Communist Party should exercise leadership over the country's economy, armed forces, schools and all aspects of society". I'm not making this up, this was one of the essay questions, and the exam noted that 'more marks' (read: higher grades) would be given for 'positive writing'.

Maybe not so surprising? In a communist society that controls everything of a citizen's life, why would we expect anything different but a kowtow to the government and its minions in education, science, industry and of course, culture in all its manifestations in everyday life?

Here's something that also needs to be addressed in reference to this test, and its political bent: This test's results and grades are now being accepted by some prestigious American universities. NYU, University of San Francisco, among others now accept this test in lieu of the SAT, or in addition to it. There are now thirty Canadian college/universities that accept the gaokao as entrance qualifier. Half of Australia's colleges welcome these scores, including Australia's 'Ivy League' known as the Group of Eight. Cambridge University? On board. France, Spain and Italy are following.

Supposedly the English speaking universities ignore the political ramifications and answers, sticking to the academic. But many administrators are feeling that 'rote thinking' to pass the tests and political angling can indicate narrowness of thought and certainly a political lockstep with their home country politics.

I've been thinking about how China (and yes, Russia, in our recent political processes and media tinkering) has been using our own ideas of freedom almost as weapons against us. No freedom of speech or expression over there, but these Americans are apparently so naive: we Chinese can use the First (and most precious) Amendment to advance our political causes, and blindside the Americans in their own 'free' media. How ironic, methinks. Almost like being hoisted on our own petard. One of the hazards of a free society? High stakes, indeed.

And did you know that one third of all international students in American universities are from the People's republic? Yes, many Asian students are natural born American students, but the international student community is one third Chinese citizens who took that gaokao and answered those political questions 'correctly'. Many of our institutes of higher learning could arguably be dependent upon the tuition garnered from Chinese students (Beijing's money, I would think, possibly garnered in dollars from their exports to us). Which dollars are also, to an extent, financing the Belt and Road which might eventually strangle those Third World countries which need the largess and expertise.

Maybe all the talk about tariffs and trade 'wars' is a smokescreen. Their smoke, and our oblivious, and trusting, American nature.

v14i37